Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Also the quote from the architects and engineers was from 2007... It goes on to say "There is however a growing body of very solid evidence regarding these "collapses" that has emerged in the last couple of yearsgaining ground even in the mainstream media. This new evidence casts grave doubt upon the theories of the 9/11 building collapse"experts" as well as the official reports by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST." Comparing Architects and Engineers that have studied the WTC collapse with piano teachers is fallacious.

Underwriter laboratories did their own tests on steel beams and found that the towers had to have explosives to fall the way they did.

Do you realize multiple buildings throughout history have burned hotter and longer than the WTC but have not collapsed? Besides, WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 withstood far more damage than 7, yet the bottom halfs of them were still standing. Building 7 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4

Comparing a bridge to a building is illogical. The pancake theory of how the building collapsed has already been debunked.

Molten metal under the towers 6 weeks after collapse? Impossible with jet fuel and small office fires.

Do you realize governments throughout history have staged terror attacks to get agendas across? Gulf of Tonkin, Hitler and his Reichstag, Oklahoma city bombing (came out the FBI made the bomb and trained the driver), Operation Northwoods are just a few. The US government most definitely has the capability.

Also the quote from the architects and engineers was from 2007... It goes on to say "There is however a growing body of very solid evidence regarding these "collapses" that has emerged in the last couple of yearsgaining ground even in the mainstream media. This new evidence casts grave doubt upon the theories of the 9/11 building collapse"experts" as well as the official reports by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST."

That makes me laugh even more.

The full statement is that they are untrained and non-experts, but they are still willing to go on to conclude that the evidence is sound. That still is not a vote of confidence.

Quote:

Comparing Architects and Engineers that have studied the WTC collapse with piano teachers is fallacious.

AE911 not only includes people who are architects and engineers, but those people who are students and workers for architects and engineers.

Out of the 1000, there are only 284 are actual working architects or engineers.

So yes, I think it's quite fair to hold a piano teacher as accountable to the history of piano as I do architects, engineers and their secretaries to chemistry. In fact, I hold piano teachers MORE accountable to the history of the piano than I do to architects and the people who work for them to chemistry.

Underwriter laboratories did their own tests on steel beams and found that the towers had to have explosives to fall the way they did.

Underwriter laboratories did do tests on the steel beams, but did NOT conclude explosives were the the only way they could fall.

That conclusion was reached by Kevin Ryan, who was employed outside of UL.

Quote:

Do you realize multiple buildings throughout history have burned hotter and longer than the WTC but have not collapsed? Besides, WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 withstood far more damage than 7, yet the bottom halfs of them were still standing. Building 7 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4

Again, another conspiracy that ignores important evidence that disproves their conspiracy.

Rather than going through each building listed, maybe I should just state the obvious.

There has been NO fire in any skyscraper that has been allowed to burn uncontrollably like 9/11. Period. Every one except the WTC had a functioning fire suppression system and real firefighters working directly on the fire.

Comparing a controlled fire with an uncontrolled fire, without taking in account that the fire was controlled, will only lead to faulty conclusions.

Quote:

Comparing a bridge to a building is illogical.

Comparing the results of a fuel fire on two steel structures is totally illogical!

It might be a challenge for you, but I find comparing two structures which share similar properties under similar conditions very useful.

Before you call me on it. Since the various skyscraper fires were not under similar conditions as the WTC, this is not a contradiction to what I've said before.

Quote:

The pancake theory of how the building collapsed has already been debunked.

It is not the NIST official explanation.

I would like to point out the majority of the architects who originally studied the collapse came with the pancake conclusion. By dismissing the pancake claim, you are doing what you accused me of, dismissing architects which studied the collapse.

Quote:

Molten metal under the towers 6 weeks after collapse? Impossible with jet fuel and small office fires.

Not impossible with a fire that burned uncontrollably for 19 days over 17 acres. The fires weren't put out for 2 months, and could possibly have pockets that were high enough to melt some metals.

Originally Posted By: "Popular Mechanics"

"The debris pile sat cooking for weeks, with the materials at the bottom of the pile getting increasingly hot because the fires were confined and lost minimal heat to the atmosphere. As a result the fires could have easily reached temps sufficient to melt steel, not to mention most other metals found in the buildings."

Let me also mention that most of the molten steal reports were not examined by experts, and it's easy for non-experts to confuse oxidized weaken steal with molten steel.

The 11 people rescued from the rubble of the WTC is proof enough that there was not a significant flow of molten metal. When people get hit with molten metal, they don't give a thumbs up like Arnold in Terminator 2, they pretty much get burned to death.

Especially if you consider the amount of molten metal Steve Jones claims to have been falling on them.

Quote:

Do you realize governments throughout history have staged terror attacks to get agendas across? Gulf of Tonkin, Hitler and his Reichstag,

Do you realize that governments also get attacked legitimately a lot more often they they stage one.

Quote:

Oklahoma city bombing (came out the FBI made the bomb and trained the driver), Operation Northwoods are just a few. The US government most definitely has the capability.

One crazy conspiracy theory at a time, dude.

Next we'll be talking about chem trails poisoning us and how Jesus visited the Mayas. Oh wait, Steve E Jones is an expert on those things too!

It's kind of weird how these conspiracy theorists tend to be linked to many different unrelated theories. It's almost like there are just some people that are predisposed to them.

_________________________
Dr. Appleman, former NASA engineer, Empire of Earth and B.S. of Ninjutsu at MIT.

appleman, The Internet only makes this worse. In the past, many people believed everything they saw on television. Now they get 100x more from the net, little of it checked for accuracy. (It need only be checked for allure.)

If people believe that magic creams can eliminate wrinkles, that a little pill will improve "mental energy" or take off 30 pounds, that a "magic putty" can fix leaking pipes, then they're primed to believe any huckster. The net is rife with them. (Stupid people are everywhere. Avoid them.)

I've been exposed the a lot of these websites recently, but you've gotta respect this one. When other sites try to hid illogical thinking, this one goes all out crazy right from the start.

The claim that everyone is either incompetent or part of a secret society whose oaths are preventing them from finding the truth is probably my favorite part.

I've tried to go through their PDF, but it's huge and filled with so many blatant falsehoods and half-truths it's hard to even go though the entire thing.

A lot of it hinges on Steve Jones again. AGAIN. Does that man get around a lot or what?

Dr. Jeff King. King is only has a BS in EE and Biology, only went to MIT for math for 2 years, and is a family doctor by profession. Yet the firefighters identify him as "Dr. Jeff King MIT Structural Engineer". From now on, I am Dr. Appleman, former NASA engineer and empire of Earth.

Again, most of the argument on this website revolves around Mr. King, Mr. Jones and misquotes of various firefighters on the scene, as well as the old standby, "It happened before, so it's happening now".

_________________________
Dr. Appleman, former NASA engineer, Empire of Earth and B.S. of Ninjutsu at MIT.

I have yet to see and hard evidence disproving my claims. Laughing at me and saying things like "It might be hard for you to do this" are ad hominem attacks and distract from any civilized discussion.

Farmer’s contention is that the government agreed to create a phony official version of events to cover-up the real story behind 9/11. - http://joerobertson.com/newstome/security/john-farmers-book-the-ground-truth-the-story-behind-america%E2%80%99s-defense-on-911

Quote:

That makes me laugh even more. The full statement is that they are untrained and non-experts, but they are still willing to go on to conclude that the evidence is sound. That still is not a vote of confidence. AE911 not only includes people who are architects and engineers, but those people who are students and workers for architects and engineers. Out of the 1000, there are only 284 are actual working architects or engineers.

So? Being a student or worker disqualifies you from being educated and examining evidence under the supervision of professionals? You said they are non-experts and then go on to say they are architects and engineers?

No, you didn't disprove Jones' claims of thermite, or anybody's claim of thermite or nano-thermite yet. Name calling again doesn't help your case.

Quote:

Underwriter laboratories did do tests on the steel beams, but did NOT conclude explosives were the the only way they could fall.

That conclusion was reached by Kevin Ryan, who was employed outside of UL.

He was FIRED after he made that conclusion.

Quote:

Again, another conspiracy that ignores important evidence that disproves their conspiracy.

Like what? Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to cause the kind of structural collapse of the WTC and eject huge steel girders away from the building.

Quote:

I would like to point out the majority of the architects who originally studied the collapse came with the pancake conclusion. By dismissing the pancake claim, you are doing what you accused me of, dismissing architects which studied the collapse.

Not impossible with a fire that burned uncontrollably for 19 days over 17 acres. The fires weren't put out for 2 months, and could possibly have pockets that were high enough to melt some metals.

"Some metal" is a huge understatement. All quotes from eyewitnesses are consistent with literal molten metal or "rivers of flowing metal".

Originally Posted By: "Popular Mechanics"

"The debris pile sat cooking for weeks, with the materials at the bottom of the pile getting increasingly hot because the fires were confined and lost minimal heat to the atmosphere. As a result the fires could have easily reached temps sufficient to melt steel, not to mention most other metals found in the buildings."

Let me also mention that most of the molten steal reports were not examined by experts, and it's easy for non-experts to confuse oxidized weaken steal with molten steel.

The melting temperature of steel is 1532 C, or 2790 F. Iron can only be melted in a specially designed blast furnace (where lots of extra oxygen is pumped into the furnace). Knowing this, please explain how the steel shown in the following videos can melt in open air fires.

The 11 people rescued from the rubble of the WTC is proof enough that there was not a significant flow of molten metal. When people get hit with molten metal, they don't give a thumbs up like Arnold in Terminator 2, they pretty much get burned to death.

Nobody got rescued out of the molten metal.

Quote:

Do you realize that governments also get attacked legitimately a lot more often then they stage one.

Next we'll be talking about chem trails poisoning us and how Jesus visited the Mayas. Oh wait, Steve E Jones is an expert on those things too!

Your mixing lies with truth, thats dangerous territory and a bad tactic, your destroying your credibility, but since you brought these up, I'll deal with them. Your somehow trying to make a correlation between Stephen Jones (a scientist) with myth. Chem trails do exist and it's not a "conspiracy". Even the history channel did a report on this and the United States, the Chinese and Russian governments have all admitted that they are manipulating the weather.

Quote:

It's kind of weird how these conspiracy theorists tend to be linked to many different unrelated theories. It's almost like there are just some people that are predisposed to them.

It's not unrelated. I'm am proving to you that governments have the capability to stage false flag events (and they do) which is related to the discussion of 9/11 being an inside job. It's happened before (gulf of tonkin, operation northwoods, are a few in the United States). It has happened thoughout history.

Your using the word conspiracy as a kind of "throw around" word. A conspiracy is defined as - an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot, or a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose.

appleman, The Internet only makes this worse. In the past, many people believed everything they saw on television. Now they get 100x more from the net, little of it checked for accuracy. (It need only be checked for allure.)

Of course no one should believe everything they see on the internet, I don't know how that would apply to me though. Nobody should believe anything they hear on the media without doing their own research.

Quote:

If people believe that magic creams can eliminate wrinkles, that a little pill will improve "mental energy" or take off 30 pounds, that a "magic putty" can fix leaking pipes, then they're primed to believe any huckster.

The same goes for those who get all their news from the corporate-controlled media and have been programmed what to believe.

“Farmer builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version not only is almost entirely untrue but serves to create a false impression of order and security.”

Farmer's story is that the government cannot protect you from terrorist attacks and it's lying to you that it can. It has little to nothing to do with 9/11 being a planned attack by the government.

Originally Posted By: lisztonian

Quote:

That makes me laugh even more. The full statement is that they are untrained and non-experts, but they are still willing to go on to conclude that the evidence is sound. That still is not a vote of confidence. AE911 not only includes people who are architects and engineers, but those people who are students and workers for architects and engineers. Out of the 1000, there are only 284 are actual working architects or engineers.

So? Being a student or worker disqualifies you from being educated and examining evidence under the supervision of professionals? You said they are non-experts and then go on to say they are architects and engineers?

You can be an expert at one thing without being an expert at everything. The few that are experts are experts of architecture, not demolitions or chemistry.

The ones that are not even professional architects, just people who work for them or students, should not be listed as an Architect against 9/11. That's an appeal to authority they do not deserve.

When you say that 1000 architects believe 9/11 was false, it should be 1000 real architects. If you wanted it to be 1000 smart people for 9/11 truth, I wouldn't have raised the objection.

Well, to prove your point about Steven E Jones, you link his co-author. That's basically supporting Steven E Jones by citing Steven E Jones. You're not allowed to do that!

Quote:

Quote:

I think I already covered why I think it's total bupkis.

No, you didn't disprove Jones' claims of thermite, or anybody's claim of thermite or nano-thermite yet. Name calling again doesn't help your case.

Yes I did. I said everything in his samples are what you expect from a huge building falling down.

He jumps to the conclusion of thermite without examining what else it could have been.

He doesn't for example, take a real bit of thermite and burn it himself and examine the output. He doesn't take a sample of dust outside in a normal city outside of a welding shop like the one he tested from and see if there is any contamination. He doesn't explain why certain important pieces of thermite are not present in his sample.

Quote:

Quote:

Underwriter laboratories did do tests on the steel beams, but did NOT conclude explosives were the the only way they could fall.

That conclusion was reached by Kevin Ryan, who was employed outside of UL.

He was FIRED after he made that conclusion.

That still doesn't change the fact that he was not employed directly by UL.

Quote:

Like what? Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to cause the kind of structural collapse of the WTC and eject huge steel girders away from the building.

Incorrect, as the truck fire I've posted about earlier in this thread, car fuel is enough to cause a structural collapse of a steel structure.

Quote:

Quote:

Not impossible with a fire that burned uncontrollably for 19 days over 17 acres. The fires weren't put out for 2 months, and could possibly have pockets that were high enough to melt some metals.

"Some metal" is a huge understatement. All quotes from eyewitnesses are consistent with literal molten metal or "rivers of flowing metal".

Do you have a source for this?

This is one of the most videoed and photoed event in history, have anything beyond the aluminum shot in the last one.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: "Popular Mechanics"

"The debris pile sat cooking for weeks, with the materials at the bottom of the pile getting increasingly hot because the fires were confined and lost minimal heat to the atmosphere. As a result the fires could have easily reached temps sufficient to melt steel, not to mention most other metals found in the buildings."

You accuse me of Ad hominum attacks and link to a page that starts by claiming Pop Mechanics is a CIA Front. O_O

The page you link to just sources Steve E Jones and Jeff King, and does no research on it's own.

Quote:

Quote:

Let me also mention that most of the molten steal reports were not examined by experts, and it's easy for non-experts to confuse oxidized weaken steal with molten steel.

The melting temperature of steel is 1532 C, or 2790 F. Iron can only be melted in a specially designed blast furnace (where lots of extra oxygen is pumped into the furnace). Knowing this, please explain how the steel shown in the following videos can melt in open air fires.

The first video is after it's been dug up and can easily be explained by the popular mechanic's explanation.

Second video has been removed

Third video shows molten aluminum coming from the plane, which is consistent with other air plane crashes.

The fourth video compares buildings that are not the same as the WTC, making the comparison interesting, but useless.

Quote:

Quote:

The 11 people rescued from the rubble of the WTC is proof enough that there was not a significant flow of molten metal. When people get hit with molten metal, they don't give a thumbs up like Arnold in Terminator 2, they pretty much get burned to death.

Nobody got rescued out of the molten metal.

There are rivers of molten metal and yet, 11 people can survive these "rivers". With all the metal in the WTC, it doesn't make sense that these people narrowly avoid all of them.

Quote:

Quote:

Next we'll be talking about chem trails poisoning us and how Jesus visited the Mayas. Oh wait, Steve E Jones is an expert on those things too!

Your mixing lies with truth, thats dangerous territory and a bad tactic, your destroying your credibility, but since you brought these up, I'll deal with them. Your somehow trying to make a correlation between Stephen Jones (a scientist) with myth.

It is completely true that Steven E Jones believes in those things and has gone as far as put his name on them.

I am not making a correlation with a scientist and a myth. I am making a statement about a myth a scientist believes. I am saying that a scientist that has a history of jumping to strange conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt.

Quote:

Chem trails do exist and it's not a "conspiracy". Even the history channel did a report on this and the United States, the Chinese and Russian governments have all admitted that they are manipulating the weather.

The chem trail theory is that planes are venting poison. It has no fact in reality and is easily explained by natural phenomenon.

His "facts" are dubious at best, spurious usually, and generally used out of context. In his films, you only get "his" mutated views.

His works are reviewed far and wide. Have a look. His works just don't stand up to scrutiny.

As a Brit, the only thing I don't like about Michael Moore is his ability to be a little bit 'Hollywood' about his performances. Other than that, he should be considered an asset to patriotism. He constantly says he loves his country and hates the fact that the American people don't seem to stick up for themselves in given situations. That's admirable.. It's quite easy to dupe the population if you have the media on your side.

I personally think that anyone that thinks the 9/11 incident was a simply case of buildings falling down due to planes crashing in to them is more capable of being duped by the media and an unpatriotic American government (certainly at that time) than they are able to listen to the facts from experts in their fields.

Planes crash in to the twin towers and they fall down against all technical explanation. Bin Laden takes responsibility. America invades Iraq. Nuff said..

I don't think it takes a demolition expert to see that the buildings, especially building 7, are falling as a result of controlled demolition.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence of any controlled demolition. There aren't any actual demolition experts who've signed on to such ludicrous theories.

Think about it: isn't it very interesting that both towers began to fail right at the areas they were hit by the planes. This is an awfully strange coincidence if a controlled demo was used, especially since they were difference parts of the two buildings. So, if it was planned, the untrained pilots were good enough to guide the planes into a very small area. heck, the second plane damn near missed the building entirely. As far as building 7 goes, if it was controlled, they had very lousy timing or were incompetent. It made no sense to drop the building 8 hours after the other towers fell, injuring no one.

Wow never knew this section of the forums was here. I'm glad some people have a level head on their shoulders and can discern the flaws in the official story. Look with your eyes not with your ears. Like most already said it was considered unpatriotic to say that the official story was suspicious directly after the incident and anyone who questioned it was un-American. Funny how before noon on the day of we somehow knew who the culprits were...give me a break!

It wouldn't matter if you flew 100 planes into those buildings, they wouldn't disintegrate because of it. To the guy above me, are you aware that Larry Silverstein updated his insurance to cover for terrorist attacks just months before the attack? He also miraculously didn't go into work that day. Even if somehow those planes could have cause the collapse of those buildings they wouldn't accelerate at the speed of gravity. Cars wouldn't spontaneously combust either. It's very sad to see peoples who don't use their minds.

For anyone who wants the most in depth explanation of what happened on 9/11 I highly suggest Dr. Judy Woodses book, Where Did the Towers go? You can listen to an overview of her theory here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms1uUZX_g2I

She really hit the nail on the head with this and I hope at least one person on this site listens to that interview and buys her book.

Wow never knew this section of the forums was here. I'm glad some people have a level head on their shoulders and can discern the flaws in the official story.

People like you are the people that makes it so we cannot discuss this story with a level head.

Quote:

o the guy above me, are you aware that Larry Silverstein updated his insurance to cover for terrorist attacks just months before the attack?

Incorrect.

The WTC was insured against terrorist attacks for many, many years. It's public record that Larry Silverstein collected an insurance claim for the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC.

Quote:

He also miraculously didn't go into work that day.

The man had a doctors appointment.

Yes, it is an interesting coincidence that a 69 year old man had a doctors appointment on the very day of the attack. But must I also point out he's 69, and so frequent doctors appointments are just part of being near your life expectancy.

Quote:

Even if somehow those planes could have cause the collapse of those buildings they wouldn't accelerate at the speed of gravity.

Models have shown that this would be the case, since there would be little to no resistance as the weight of the floors collapsed on top of each other.

Quote:

Dr. Judy Woodses book,

Star Wars Energy Weapons took down the Death Star WTC. Alright.

_________________________
Dr. Appleman, former NASA engineer, Empire of Earth and B.S. of Ninjutsu at MIT.

If the tower fell because the floors were collapsing on top of each other there would have to be a moment of resistance every time a floor fell on top of another one. Even if the resistance was only .25 seconds, assuming they started collapsing from the 80th floor, that would still take 20 seconds to reach the ground. Those buildings were gone in half that time. Try and clap your hands 80 something times in around 10-11 seconds.

About Larry getting insurance in 1993 I will have to look into that because I'm almost positive that The Port Authority of new york owned the buildings and until about 6 months before the attacks they then leased it out to Larry. Even if I'm wrong about that did you do know that the FBI was caught working in conjunction with an Egyptian terrorist to bomb the WTC in 1993?

An open air fire isn't going to do any significant damage to those buildings steel beams either. Here is a list of sky scraper fires and none of them underwent a total structural collapse. Maybe partial in areas but they all remained standing and all burned much longer than the WTCs. The one in Madrid burned for 18 hours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper_fire#Notable_fires

There are too many ambiguities surrounding the official story. You would be crazy not to question it. And if you wan't to mock me before evening listening to that interview or reading her book that's fine but she provides irrefutable evidence that something else was at play that day. I really think you and everyone else read it. Even if you don't want to believe her as to what caused the collapse you can't deny the evidence she provides.

Those buildings were built on a water dyke to keep the Hudson river from flooding the basement/subway lines and supposedly 1 million tons of material 'collapsing'(collapsing in quotes because they didn't collapse, they disintegrated) to the ground didn't harm the dyke in any way. Yet when construction crews started to move their equipment in to clean up they had to park them on the outside of the dyke structure because the weight of the equipment began to damage it. Something doesn't add up there.

Cars were spontaneously combusting. Firefighters oxygen tanks were too. That isn't the result of a fire or from a building 'collapsing'.

All that was left of those buildings was dust and paper. Every single piece of paper inside that building was blown into the streets of new york that day. They found a filing cabinet with all of it's paper contents still inside of it!

I mean there is so much more to get into with this that I will have to stop here for now. I would like to have a civil discussion with people about this because it's very important people start to realize what our government is trying to do to us. They don't want us to have freedom. They never did and never will. 9/11 was a false flag attack to begin an ultimate stripping of our liberties. Governments have always done that. From Nero burning Rome to the Reichstag fire all the way to the gulf of Tonkin incident which was admitted to be a lie. A lie to send our troops to be killed in a war.

If the tower fell because the floors were collapsing on top of each other there would have to be a moment of resistance every time a floor fell on top of another one.

Not necessarily.

If we drop a heavy book from 10 feet, it will fall at the speed of gravity.If we drop a heavy book from 10 feet, it put several layers of thin, wet tissue paper across it's path, the book will still fall at the speed of gravity. The wet tissues will offer absolutely no measurable resistance and the book will rip right through them.

The floors of the WTC are not load bearing, the walls were. The force of the fall was going through the non-load bearing part of the building.

Quote:

An open air fire isn't going to do any significant damage to those buildings steel beams either. Here is a list of sky scraper fires and none of them underwent a total structural collapse. Maybe partial in areas but they all remained standing and all burned much longer than the WTCs. The one in Madrid burned for 18 hours.

All the other buildings were not built like the WTC and had working fire suppression, unlike the WTC. They also lack airplane sized holes in their support structures.

Likewise, open air fires do get hot enough to significantly weaken steel beams.

she provides irrefutable evidence that something else was at play that day.

She's peddling "woo". Star wars energy weapons exist in the same way ghosts exist on ghost hunting shows. We have no clue what ghosts can and cannot do, so therefore anything can be proof of a "ghost".

There's no such thing as a Star Wars Energy Weapon, so anything can be "proof" of it's existence.

_________________________
Dr. Appleman, former NASA engineer, Empire of Earth and B.S. of Ninjutsu at MIT.

While I accept your idea of the book falling through wet tissue it's irrelevant because NIST even says that isn't the way the buildings disappeared. They changed their theory as to how the buildings collapsed. You can read that here:

But I think you ignored some of my more important points. Did you watch the video of the steel column and girders literally just turning to dust? And are you aware cars were spontaneously combusting on that day. Firefighters oxygen tanks were exploding as well. Or my point about the water dyke that kept the Hudson river out of the subway/basement lines not being damaged by 1 million tons supposedly crashing to the ground from a quarter mile in the sky. What about that cabinet with it's paper contents still intact inside? Or all the paper contents of the towers just thrown into the streets of New York that day. If this was a normal fire paper wouldn't survive. Or what about the lack of debris at ground zero? Even the day of the event there are not enough debris left to account for 2 500,000lb buildings. That's not taking into account WTC 7 either. Heck how about all the people who have mysteriously died that worked in one of the buildings and contradicted the official story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU

And Dr. Judy Wood provides real world, tangible evidence. You did not even listen to any of the interview or read anything about what she has to say or you wouldn't have said that. Some of the tangible evidences are the questions I raise to you in the above paragraph but it goes much deeper than that. Her book is 500 pages; I can't get into all of it here.

And I understand what you meant by saying Star Wars weapons don't exist but they do. I mean the army has already weponized a heat ray. And do you know who John Hutchison is? Video of what he can do here:

Again there is a lot to get into with this but no matter which part of the event you choose to talk about that day there are always more ambiguities than truth. Why wouldn't the pentagon just release all of it's security tapes to prove a plane actually hit it? Why would they release one that shoots at 1fps and doesn't even show the side of impact. And why would FBI(or whoever the government officials were) confiscate security tapes from gas stations and stores neighboring the pentagon?

Take 2 hours and listen to what Dr. Wood has to say. Even if you don't want to believe it was some sort of secret government technology you can't deny the facts she provides.

While I accept your idea of the book falling through wet tissue it's irrelevant because NIST even says that isn't the way the buildings disappeared. They changed their theory as to how the buildings collapsed. You can read that here:

NiST only studied until the building collapse was inevitable.

Their dismissal of the pancake theory is only to point out that the pancaking of floors was the RESULT of the failure, not the cause of the failure.

Quote:

Did you watch the video of the steel column and girders literally just turning to dust?

It doesn't look like it's turing to dust. It looks like the bottom of the structure weakened and fell. The "dust" is the result of the debris sitting on and around that steal structure.

Quote:

And are you aware cars were spontaneously combusting on that day. Firefighters oxygen tanks were exploding as well.

There is no evidence of this, except coming from Dr. Judy herself.

Quote:

Or my point about the water dyke that kept the Hudson river out of the subway/basement lines not being damaged by 1 million tons supposedly crashing to the ground from a quarter mile in the sky.

Most of the support structure of the dyke was destroyed.

However, the debris were enough to keep the walls from falling over.

While removing the debris, several leaks sprong, but since this is expected, most of them didn't make anything more than the local news.

Quote:

What about that cabinet with it's paper contents still intact inside? Or all the paper contents of the towers just thrown into the streets of New York that day. If this was a normal fire paper wouldn't survive.

There was a huge fire on some of the floors, but many of the floors were not affected by the fire.

This is obvious from the videos.

Quote:

Or what about the lack of debris at ground zero?

O_o I'm not sure what 9/11 you're talking about, but there was a heck of a lot of debris.

In fact, the proof of this video existing only proves that no one is trying to cover it up. Why would the government go after them, but not be able to censor youtube?

Quote:

And I understand what you meant by saying Star Wars weapons don't exist but they do.

Look. If we have the technology to destroy a huge building like the WTC like magic, and we're not using it in Iraq or Afghanistan after so many years of war.

I'm going to be pissed.

Seriously.

Pissed.

Quote:

I mean the army has already weponized a heat ray. And do you know who John Hutchison is? Video of what he can do here:

At first, I thought he was using electromagnetic forces to bend things, which is pretty cool, but then I realized they're just moving around. The "bending" is simple perspective, similar to how "psychics" bend spoons.

It's really cool what he's doing, but almost all his words make absolutely no sense at all. He's using interesting science-y words, but fails to use them in any sort of proper context.

Quote:

Why wouldn't the pentagon just release all of it's security tapes to prove a plane actually hit it? Why would they release one that shoots at 1fps and doesn't even show the side of impact. And why would FBI(or whoever the government officials were) confiscate security tapes from gas stations and stores neighboring the pentagon?

These are the same reason.

They don't have large amounts of taped security cameras in the pentagon. When you deal with top secret information, you don't exactly want that sort of thing. Likewise, when you need a tape of the pentagon, you're going to have to go to places like gas stations and hotels, since they're the only ones that have them.

_________________________
Dr. Appleman, former NASA engineer, Empire of Earth and B.S. of Ninjutsu at MIT.

I am in total agreement with you. The last time I brought up this subject in an "off topic" area of a forum was on a credit info sight forum. I was terminated. I only asked those who might question the "official" story to investigate other viewpoints and to check out Architects and Engineers for 911 truth.

To really understand the motivation behind this attack on innocents (mostly working class cleaning staff and cooks, low paid office workers)that was planned/executed by the US National Security State Apparatus, including the help of Bourgeois mass media, is to read Vladimir Lenin's writings on Imperialism i.e. "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism"

9/11 was perpetrated at the behest of Monopoly Corporations and Finance Capital or the Financial Oligarchy of the US, Europe (mainly France and England)and the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and Zionist Israel in order for the wealthy corporate and financial interests in the US (mainly in the US) to penetrate the markets, resources, labor, minerals and drugs of other countries that are trying to develop their industries for their own people. It's called State Monopoly Capitalism, when the ruling interests who dominate every aspect of society, including our "democratic" and "republican" a.k.a. "imperialists" parties and the major media and courts along with the military, will stoop to the most unspeakable crimes to realize their aims. Whether it's Bush or Clinton, Reagan or Obama, it doesn't matter. They all represent elite monopoly capitalist interests and will stop at nothing to expand surplus value in a decaying economic system called Capitalism.

Socialism and Communism are historically necessary. It is the only way to progress, peace, production and labor. In socialism (and then communism) production is subordinated to the needs of people, not surplus profit for a small fraction of the 1%. It resolves the contradictions of capitalism caused by Overproduction and Anarchy of Production which is the cause unemployment and crisis.

The dogmatic ideology Anti-Communinism and all of it's lies was created and is sustained by the Imperialist US ruling classes. It disseminates views that are completely alien to the interests most of the working masses.

Unfortunately, Obama is more of a war criminal than Bush. Just listen to what Hina Shamsi from the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project has to say here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yPcxdEAwVA

I expect that this post will be deleted and I will get a warning not to post such statements but that's ok. Most people who love music and piano love life and the truth as well.

Security and "news anchors" are part of the Bourgeois machinery. Many of them were just doing their compartmentalized jobs and didn't really comprehend at the time what was happening. I am certain that all of these fluffy "good morning america" announcers and props now know that they were fooled as well. I still wonder how Peter Jennings died. However, it's important to remember that many "news anchors" are the children, wives and siblings of people who are firmly entrenched in teh National Security State Apparatus (military, Intelligence, courts). Most who are speaking up, especially first hand witnesses like the hotel staff who were viewing the missile attack on the Pentagon (it wasn't a plane)were murdered by the US State operatives. Many more had their lives taken because they were brave enough to speak up, from a dutch demolition expert to a wife of a Twin Tower victim. Dead. "apparent suicides"

even the mayor of Shankesville PA said "there is NO plane" I have met people from right outside of Shankesville. Residents' communication lines were interrupted for 3 days one told me when she was trying to contact her friend.